After [the fact that] the defendant plaintiff commissioned agent in Shanghai and Shenzhen securities trading activities. November 5, 2006 and the 6th transaction, since the bank transaction settlement system outage has not been deducted money 51678.96 yuan. After capital account overdraft plaintiff, the defendant repeatedly by telephone and other means to return the plaintiffs claim, but the plaintiff refused. July 20, 2007, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff, requested the return of the funds, while taking account of their restrictive measures, that can not properly transfer funds from the securities account to the bank account funds, but you can continue stock trading activity, and in 2007 12 March 15 forced the deduction of the account funds 51,678.96 yuan. To this end, the plaintiff refused to accept the courts.
[Features] case according to the actual situation in this case, has the following characteristics:
1, the defendant restrictive measures against the plaintiff account whether an infringement;
2. The plaintiff seeks compensation for lost income, transportation, industrial and commercial surveys and attorney fees if there is a legal basis for trust.
[] According to the case law applicable to the actual situation, mainly applicable laws, regulations and judicial interpretations are as follows:
1, according to "Property Law" Article IV, "state, collective and private property rights and other rights holders are protected by law, and no unit or individual shall not be violated."
2, according to "Property Law" Article 65, first paragraph, "legitimate private savings, investment and income are protected by law."
3, according to the "Securities Act" provisions of the second paragraph of Article 139, "not because of their own debt or other circumstances prescribed by law clients may not sealed up, frozen, deducted or enforce the customer's trading settlement funds or securities."
[Thinking] proxy case, the plaintiff's attorney. In the present case the characteristics, the lawyer after careful research, or seek a breakthrough in the following aspects:
1, the defendants have no right to take restrictive measures against the plaintiff securities account. According to the second part of evidence provided by the plaintiff, clearly show that the account is A477556567 securities account is the plaintiff in the defendant Corporation, a securities business department to open an account, and the defendant, and therefore the defendant to take restrictive measures against the above-mentioned securities account is no basis for Plaintiff constitute infringement.
2, the defendant when the plaintiff overdraft, the measures taken in violation of the law. According to relevant regulations, "securities registration and settlement management approach", when the customer settlement default occurs, the settlement default occurs when customers, securities companies can only dispose of securities of the funds or securities in the account dispose of, but not directly within the customer account deducted funds or sell securities.
3, the plaintiff's request for compensation, according to the law. Because of the defendant's violations, resulting in long-term securities account is limited to the plaintiff. "Property Law" Article 37 stipulates that "the violation of property rights, the rights of people causing the damage, the right holder may claim damages, may also request other civil liabilities."
[Results] Trial Court of First Instance held that, although the plaintiff did not settle stock trading in the bank's money is due Yinzhengtong settlement system disruptions due to settlement failure is not the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff can not therefore be exempt from the liquidation of stock trading duty paragraph. Meanwhile, the fund settlement is carried out by the same bank Yinzhengtong of Yinzhengtong funds directly to the account of the plaintiff funds were deducted liquidation, does not constitute infringement of the plaintiff. For claims for compensation, because the basis of the request is not satisfied and has no legal basis, the Court does not support it.
